Baker and Mason are graduate students for Medill on the Hill, a program of Northwestern University in which students serve as mobile journalists reporting on events in and around Washington, D.C.
Seventy years after Russell Kirk published “The Conservative Mind,” the center named after him revealed plans to develop a school to train conservative thinkers for the future.
The Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal announced The School of Conservative Studies at a Dec. 5 event in Washington, D.C., that was headlined by former Vice President Mike Pence. Pence lauded Kirk as “the intellectual father of the American conservative movement [and] the author of a book we celebrate 70 years now that literally changed the course, not of a movement, but of a country.”
Written in 1953, Kirk’s opus helped fuel the modern conservative movement for decades. The philosophical text promoted ideas like societal order and traditionalism by highlighting prominent conservative thinkers like poet T.S. Eliot and 18th century Irish statesman Edmund Burke.
The book’s 70th anniversary comes as the GOP wrestles with evolving party dynamics. While former President Donald Trump dominates the party, some influential Republicans say he is not a conservative. A recent study by the Associated Press found that just 9 percent of Republicans feel that they can speak openly about their views on college campuses.
One speaker praised Pence’s actions on Jan. 6, 2021, when he rejected Trump’s calls for Pence to declare that the defeated president had actually won the 2020 election.
“Mike Pence will be validated and honored across the political spectrum for the courage that he's shown on that day,” said John Wood Jr., a national ambassador for Braver Angels, a crosspartisan group focused on depolarization. “You just may not be able to see it in the passions of the moment, but we feel that vindication rising.”
Kelsey Baker and Anastasia Mason
Wood’s comments came the day before 10 Wisconsin Republicans who supported Trump’s false election-win claims in 2020 agreed to acknowledge President Joe Biden’s legitimate election. They agreed to not serve as presidential electors in 2024.
Despite Trump’s dominance in the battle for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, no one mentioned his name throughout the event.
Representatives of the Kirk Center did not respond to requests for interviews to explain whether their new school (slated to open in 2025) was designed to offer an alternative to the MAGA-dominated Republican Party. However, the center’s director made it clear that he believes the conservative movement needs an intellectual revival.
“Contemporary students have little exposure to serious conservative thought,” said Jeffrey Nelson, executive director and CEO of the Kirk Center. “What's particularly distressing to me, and I know to many of you, is that young conservatives today, many at least, now exhibit high levels of civic and cultural illiteracy. There is then the urgent need for learning experiences that engage intellectual conservatism at its best.”
During the event, a panel of young activists presented their ideas on the current struggles and the future of the conservative movement. According to research from Tufts University, only 65 percent of young Republicans identify as conservatives, compared to 81 percent of older Republicans. In the last presidential election, just 37 percent of voters aged 18-29 voted Republican.
“When they look at conservatism, they assume that it's a stale political philosophy that protects old, withered and sometimes even bad ideas,” said University of Notre Dame doctoral student Elayne Allen, who served on the panel. “And at worst, they see a bunch of reactionaries who dislike any kind of change, and this might be true of some conservatives, but I would argue that thinking is actually quite indispensable to conservatism.”
The panelists said conservative politicians have struggled to draw young people to the polls at a time when the country needs more spiritual and moral guidance.
“The conservatives and ‘The Conservative Mind’ frequently lose the political battle of the moment,” Wood said. “What Kirk is valorizing, oftentimes, is the necessity for standing up for lost causes.”
The push to highlight younger conservatives and create the School of Conservative Studies is at least partly rooted in the ideological divide between generations. While studies have shown that Americans tend to get more conservative as they age, the movement would benefit from younger supporters now, especially after Republicans took major losses in Virginia, Kentucky and Ohio in November’s elections.
A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.